European Colonisation: Good or Bad [Archive]

Peepelonia

13-09-2006, 15:03

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:06

500 years cause thats when Europe started sailing to far away distanced land

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

13-09-2006, 15:07

European colonization exported industrialization, Western philosophy, and liberalisation, democratic traditions to the world.
Whether you think that is a good or bad thing really on how one feels that the above merit against the traditional customs and agricultural/hunter-gatherer economies that they wiped out to move the aforementioned industrialization, Western philosophy and democratic traditions.
My own view on the matter is that one can't make an omelette without breaking a few ancient, local cultures.

It could also be noted that many of the cultures that the Europeans imperialised out of existence had, themselves, been imperialising their neighbors out of existence.

Peepelonia

13-09-2006, 15:07

500 years cause thats when Europe started sailing to far away distanced land

There was no such thing as Europe 500 years ago.

Deep Kimchi

13-09-2006, 15:10

The cow has already left the barn here. It's rather late to be bitching about colonialism.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:12

I not bitchin about it.....i was wondering if it did more good than harm

Now excuse me as i go find that cow....

Aelosia

13-09-2006, 15:12

In the past 500 years Europe has

BAD
- destroyed the Incan and Aztec Civilization
- murdered an entire ethic group (Caribs all 2 million of them)

Are you talking about the Caribes? Good thing they (my ancestors) got rid of them. They were cannibal monsters barely deserving the right to live. Their civilization was criminal, to say the least. And no, "respect to their culture" do not means to let them plunder, sack, enslave, kill and devour all other human beings around, with the Caribes, it was self defense.

About the Incan and Aztec civilization...Well, poor incans, I know they were the good lot, even with their flaws. They were advanced, and partially civilized. The Aztecs weren't a good bunch, although, just another militaristic civilization that dwelled in dangerous and criminal customs. With the aztecs, I say they played the "let's see who's more badass" game with the spanish, and lost, suffering the standards consequences.

Pure Metal

13-09-2006, 15:15

Laerod

13-09-2006, 15:17

In the past 500 years Europe has

BAD
- destroyed the Incan and Aztec Civilization
- murdered an entire ethic group (Caribs all 2 million of them)
- rid most of the natives in South America
- Plundered amd stoled the riches of other countries
- Cause the extinction of several species of animals and plants(Dodo)
- Endangered hundreds of animals(The Bison)
- Working millions to death or in poor conditions
- The introduction of many alien species that destroys the enviroment
- Forcing the change of religion or death

GOOD
- populated the world Because there were no populations already?
- spreaded Christianity(I think this is Good in a way) I remember the Spanish using this to ease their consciences about enslaving people
- industrialization Hardly. Only really in the countries that Europeans stayed in
- Western philosophy That hasn't gotten exported as much as migh be good
- liberalisation (Not sure about this)
- democratic traditions
um.... Anything Else?Meh. Colonization was good for the Europeans and Europeans and Americans like myself owe their lavish lifestyles to it. But it was definitely much more bad than good for the countries that were colonized.

The Potato Factory

13-09-2006, 15:18

There was no such thing as Europe 500 years ago.

What the hell are you talking about? Europe's been around for tens of thousands of years.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:18

If i remenber correctly, the spanish shipped the caribs to be used as slaves....
and the if some strange ship appeared out of nowhere and white man in armour came out, of course i see them as a threat so what do i do ...attack

Psychotic Mongooses

13-09-2006, 15:22

What the hell are you talking about? Europe's been around for tens of thousands of years.

Europe was not a single entity. 500 years ago it was mainly several Empires.

Blaming the continent is not accurate. Blaming Imperialism is- and Europe was not the only region bent on Imperialism or Imperialist expansion.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:25

And what other country was bent on imperialism? Japan?

OKay lets refer Europe to German,British,Spanish,Portuguese,French,Italians and Dutch

Peepelonia

13-09-2006, 15:27

What the hell are you talking about? Europe's been around for tens of thousands of years.

The land that evolved into Europe yes, but the state of Europe really?;)

Psychotic Mongooses

13-09-2006, 15:31

And what other country was bent on imperialism? Japan?
Sure why not. Historically lots of states/peoples were Imperialistic. Some still are but in different ways.

OKay lets refer Europe to German,British,Spanish,Portuguese,French,Italians and Dutch
I don't believe Germany had a enough of a viable "Empire" to warrant it being discussed here as part of the larger "evils" of Imperialism.

For different eras, one could look at the Spanish or the British or the French and some other lesser ones.

Russians, Japanese, Chinese, Turks, Mexica, Inca too.

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 15:31

with the Caribes, it was self defense.

You bloody idiot. I've seen one hell of a lot of imbecilistic statements in NS General, but that has to be very near top of the list.

You go into someone's house, burgle him, rape his wife and try to kidnap his children, he attacks you to make you leave, you kill him... and claim it was self-defence? In fact, whatever the circumstances, you cannot claim self-defence when you're invading someone else's country!

I'm not even going to go into the simplistic, ignorant nonsense that filled the rest of your post. You're not worth the effort.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:33

You cant say China, it was not bent on ruling every rock it sees

Russia..... Russia.......It is not as crazy as the brits though

Choeson

13-09-2006, 15:34

European colonization is a widely ambiguous event in history. Whether or not it is "good" or "bad", it's still history.

Ergo, it is what it is - digging in the past tends to incite some mischief, especially when excessively polarized by human opinions.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:37

Psychotic Mongooses

13-09-2006, 15:38

You cant say China, it was not bent on ruling every rock it sees
I think Tibet may disagree with you (modern), and possibly the Vietnamese (historically).

Russia..... Russia.......It is not as crazy as the brits though

Meh. *shrug*

Aquilonius Gloria

13-09-2006, 15:39

First of all:
"There was no such thing as Europe 500 years ago."
Well what did they call the place on the map called Europe 500 years ago? I know, EUROPE!!!!!!
The name Europe was established almost 2500 years ago by the Greeks, and later picked up by the Romans!

A couple of things that have not been mentioned
-Azteks sacrificed thousands of humans by cutting out their hearts wile the victims still were alive.
-Europeans unfied technology from the east and philosohy from the west, wich braught was the foundation of travels across the globe.
-Europeans did not singlehandedly populate the world.
-It is wrong to speak of Europeans as one people because we are in fact many nations with hudreds of different cultures and langueges.
-Lord Sandwich invented the...yes...the "Sandwich".
-When speaking of Philosophy Europe have hundreds of them. Aristotle, Socrates, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Emmanuel Kant, René Descartes, Baron de Montesqieu and so on and so forth.
-Yes many Europeans have done some shitty things but so have people in every country and nation. Because Castro is a murderer and a theif, doesn´t mean that every Cuban is. Althoug Stalin was crazy, doesn´t mean that every Russian is (or Georgian, Stalin was originally from Georgia). Well you get the point.
-You have to agree that apart from some bad things that have happened in history, we are all better off today than we were 500 years ago... or do you disagree with that?

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 15:40

And what other country was bent on imperialism? Japan?

OKay lets refer Europe to German,British,Spanish,Portuguese,French,Italians and Dutch

You'll find that Germany didn't yet exists as a country 500 years ago. It only became one in 1870, and tried its hand at imperialism comparatively late.

Fartsniffage

13-09-2006, 15:43

I don't believe Germany had a enough of a viable "Empire" to warrant it being discussed here as part of the larger "evils" of Imperialism.

Edmund - George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe,
while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in
Tanganyika.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:44

Good Point there.

China did Invade Tibet, but they were in their Cultural Revolution

Vietnam....They invaded that......End of craze expansion

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 15:44

European colonization is a widely ambiguous event in history. Whether or not it is "good" or "bad", it's still history.

Ergo, it is what it is

The question is that of its interpretation. To say "it is what it is" implies it's possible to give a consensual interpretation of it, which isn't the case.

The main problem is that most people in the West want to judge other cultures, and do so based on their own, Western cultural values - believing there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong" as objective norms, and not realising that comparing A to B on the basis of A's subjective norms and values is absurd (a ridiculous form of circular logic which rarely occurs to anyone, as many posts in this thread prove).

- digging in the past tends to incite some mischief,

Depends how you do it. Historical research is a good thing, if it helps us uncover truths and helps us understand the values of foreign cultures (or of our own ancestors). I know we live in an era which values ignorance - and aggressively asserted ignorance, at that (again, the statements found in these fora are saddening proof of that) - but the more knowledge we have of the world we live in (or of those who preceded us), the better able we are to grasp the fundamental complexities of that world (instead of clinging to simplistic untruths in a pathetically flawed need to feel we do understand that which we don't).

especially when excessively polarized by human opinions.

Which is why we need to be aware of where our own opinions come from, what rational or irrational basis they're founded on, to what degree they derive from our cultural subjectivity, etc...

Vacuumhead

13-09-2006, 15:45

If it wasn't for european colonisation, many of my friends here wouldn't exist! :eek:

:(

Ulgan

13-09-2006, 15:47

Also, the majority of europeans weren't doing a whole lot better than the people that were colonized. Granted, they didn't have to worry about being outright slaughtered but many of them were oppressed, under paid and lived in horrible conditions.

And every region of the world has had its imperialists at one point or another, just most were as far reaching as certain european nations. The Indian subcontinent, sub-saharan africa, northern africa, the middle east, east asia, they've all had regional powers which dominated and subjegated its neighbors. You can't just say, "look at what ____ european country did! how awful" and not recognize that there were plenty of other nations and nationalities doing the exact samething all over the world.

Peepelonia

13-09-2006, 15:47

You'll find that Germany didn't yet exists as a country 500 years ago. It only became one in 1870, and tried its hand at imperialism comparatively late.

Umm I thought that the Holy Roman Empire was Toutonic?

New Mitanni

13-09-2006, 15:48

In the past 500 years Europe has

BAD
- destroyed the Incan and Aztec Civilization

Civilizations who practice human sacrifice deserve whatever fate befalls them.

- murdered an entire ethic group (Caribs all 2 million of them)
- rid most of the natives in South America

As the Romans put it so well: Vae victis.

BTW: they did not "murder" two million Caribs--the Carib population numbered in the thousands, not millions. The Caribs themselves wiped out the Arawaks who were living on the island of Dominica before they themselves "colonized" that island. And there are still a few hundred Caribs left today. (see http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3238.html ). There are also plenty of South American Indians left today. One of them just got elected president of Bolivia.

- Plundered amd stoled the riches of other countries

A common side-effect of cultural expansion. That's the way nations were created historically, whether or not the same practices would occur today.

- Cause the extinction of several species of animals and plants(Dodo)
- Endangered hundreds of animals(The Bison)

Again, historically a common side-effect of cultural expansion. For example, the Polynesians "colonized" Madagascar, New Zealand and Hawaii, among other locations, and caused the extinction of the elephant bird, moa, various Hawaiian birds, and other species.

- Working millions to death or in poor conditions

Working conditions have improved over the cited time span. The same can't generally be said for non-European civilizations.

- The introduction of many alien species that destroys the enviroment

Changed, certainly. Destroyed? Hardly.

- Forcing the change of religion or death

In many cases that was a good thing (see Aztecs, above).

GOOD
- populated the world
- spreaded Christianity(I think this is Good in a way)
- industrialization
- Western philosophy
- liberalisation (Not sure about this)
- democratic traditions
um.... Anything Else?

Improved medical and agricultural practices alone outweigh almost every "BAD" point you cite. As do Western scientific advances such as weather forecasting. Not to mention enabling you to post this very argument, via the Internet.

Members of "European" or "Western" civilization who obsess about the past and put down their own civilizations (n.b.: not saying you fall into that category) remind me of someone who takes the position, "My mother was a whore, my father was a wife-beating drunk, so therefore I should never have been born."

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 15:48

You know i think the brits did the same things to the native americans

Yes, and almost succeeded in wiping out the Australian Aboriginals, and others. Australia actually had an official policy (until the 1970s) of eradicating Aboriginals through seizing all "half-caste" children by force and having them brought up by Whites, making sure they married Whites, etc... "Breeding out" the Aboriginals, a ghastly and very effective form of eugenics. Referred to today as the "Stolen Generations" policies.

Aryavartha

13-09-2006, 15:51

European Colonisation: Good or Bad

Good for the coloniser.

Bad for the colonised.

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 15:53

First of all:
"There was no such thing as Europe 500 years ago."
Well what did they call the place on the map called Europe 500 years ago? I know, EUROPE!!!!!!
The name Europe was established almost 2500 years ago by the Greeks, and later picked up by the Romans!

And yet, Europe didn't colonise the world. European nations did.

A couple of things that have not been mentioned
-Azteks sacrificed thousands of humans by cutting out their hearts wile the victims still were alive.

At the same time, European nations were burning witches and heretics alive. How much more civilised.

-You have to agree that apart from some bad things that have happened in history, we are all better off today than we were 500 years ago... or do you disagree with that?

Possibly. Hard to say, really.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:53

Not sure if its true but once a British Lord Pointed at Tasmania and said "What good place to dump our convicts"

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 15:54

Umm I thought that the Holy Roman Empire was Toutonic?

Teutonic. The point is that Germany as a nation, with an "awareness" of possessing a national identity / unity, did not exist at that point. The development of the concept of nationhood throughout Europe is quite a fascinating topic...

Germany did, however, exist by the time it created its (relatively short-lived) colonial empire in the Pacific.

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 15:54

Umm I thought that the Holy Roman Empire was Toutonic?

Not quite sure what you mean.
It was a very loose union of small and tiny kingdoms, fiefdoms and free cities.

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 15:56

Not sure if its true but once a British Lord Pointed at Tasmania and said "What good place to dump our convicts"

Convicts were sent to Tasmania, yes. How exactly the decision was made I can't quite remember.

Peepelonia

13-09-2006, 15:56

Teutonic. The point is that Germany as a nation, with an "awareness" of possessing a national identity / unity, did not exist at that point. The development of the concept of nationhood throughout Europe is quite a fascinating topic...

Germany did, however, exist by the time it created its (relatively short-lived) colonial empire in the Pacific.

Cheers for that;)

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 15:59

Shortly before losing it to the british after WW1

Aelosia

13-09-2006, 15:59

You bloody idiot. I've seen one hell of a lot of imbecilistic statements in NS General, but that has to be very near top of the list.

You go into someone's house, burgle him, rape his wife and try to kidnap his children, he attacks you to make you leave, you kill him... and claim it was self-defence? In fact, whatever the circumstances, you cannot claim self-defence when you're invading someone else's country!

I'm not even going to go into the simplistic, ignorant nonsense that filled the rest of your post. You're not worth the effort.

And then...What the hell do you know about the Caribes?

The Caribes were an ethnic group that were doing that to their own neighbours for ages before the spanish came to the Americas.

They went into everyone's house (the Caribes' system of survival was based on sacking the neighbour's lands and robbing other peoples, they were almost nomadic, just keeping their own lands as a base of operations for their raids), they did burgle, rape, kidnap and enslave, even eat, other natives. Other indian groups from here in Venezuela asked, yesh, ASKED, the spanish to topple the caribes, they were too fierce and savage. They were pirates in the sea and the worst barbaric tribe you can ever imagine in land. They didn't have a country, they didn't have lands not previously taken from other tribes in the most bloody and cruel fashion available to their primitive customs.

I do not defend other carnages that the worst people of Spain, (most conquistadores were criminals and outlaws), launched into the aborigins. Pizarro was perhaps one opf the worst monsters in history, and Cortéz is not too far behind. But with the caribes, it's an exception, they brought that upon themselves. The Arawakos, Timoto Cuicas, Waraos, Pemones, suffered a lot under the unfair iron grip of the spanish, because they were innocent, naive people, but also they suffered before under the arrows of the caribe raiders.

You start a raging inferno without any knowledge of cause just because you think it is "humanistic" to defend certain groups as a whole without knowing the details of each one. I won't insult you, you have insulted yourself. Wanna defend the incas?, I'm in your side. Wanna defend other peoples?, I agree with you. The Caribes?, to let them loose in the world as they used to be was like allowing nazi germany to do as they pleased.

Oh, and Caribes were useless as slaves, they were too fierce to be "tamed" (using a despicable term used back then). They were too much a threat to be treated with a lash, they also knew the language of violence. So the fact of them being "shipped" as labor is not accurate. Other peoples, more pacific and calm were used instead (and that do not make it right).

Glad to show you some facts perhaps you weren't aware of.

Aronnax

13-09-2006, 16:02

Vicious...cool but plain vicious

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 16:02

Civilizations who practice human sacrifice deserve whatever fate befalls them.

See my earlier post on how absurd that statement is.

As the Romans put it so well: Vae victis.

How very humane...

BTW: they did not "murder" two million Caribs--the Carib population numbered in the thousands, not millions. [...] And there are still a few hundred Caribs left today.

[sarcasm]Oh, well that makes it all right, then. Perfectly justifies committing genocide, as long as there are a few survivors.[/quote]

Again, historically a common side-effect of cultural expansion. For example, the Polynesians "colonized" Madagascar, New Zealand and Hawaii, among other locations, and caused the extinction of the elephant bird, moa, various Hawaiian birds, and other species.

At least you're not ignorant in that sense. The Polynesians did indeed settle New Zealand and Hawaii, and messed up the environment there - a human constant, it seems. It was not, however, the Polynesians who went to Madagascar. They went south to NZ, north to Hawaii and east to Easter Island, but the furthest west they went was to create enclaves in Melanesia.

Ariddia

13-09-2006, 16:14

Glad to show you some facts perhaps you weren't aware of.

I knew most of what you've said, but admittedly not all, so thank you for that. (Don't assume that because I'm European I've never taken an interest in who the Caribes were, although sadly most Europeans haven't.) I'm not saying the situation was clear cut, black and white; few situations are. And I'm not going to say it's a shame the Caribes were prevented from attacking other societies. (Although it didn't do the native South Americans much good, since they then had to face much worse...)

But genocide, the systematic and ruthless extermination of an entire people, the slaughter of civilians and children, is never justifiable.

The "logic" of massacring Caribes to prevent them from potentially being massacred by other Caribes is rather ironic.

I'm sure you can accept that condemning the quasi-extermination of the Caribes is not incompatible with deploring the murderous ways of Caribe pirates.

Aquilonius Gloria

13-09-2006, 16:15

And yet, Europe didn't colonise the world. European nations did.
You guys are misunderstanding what I´m saying. In my last post I said that Europe consists and has consisted of several nations. I was answering a man that thinks that there is some sort of single European Entity. So I think we agree on this.
For those that still don´t understand I´ll repeat my message:
There is neither today nor has there ever been a state called Europe!

At the same time, European nations were burning witches and heretics alive. How much more civilised.
I never claimed anyone was more civilized. I´m just saying that shit happens.

Possibly. Hard to say, really.
I always wondered how it would be eating rotten food, molded bread and drinking dirty water. And let´s not forget dying from the flu, smallpox, typhoid, a swollen appendix or syphilis... Remember the lucky blind and deaf that were left out in forrests for the animals to kill because they were unwanted? Those were the days friends, those were the days...

Aelosia

13-09-2006, 16:22

And a side note on this "Spanish" Empire you keep talking about.

The Kingdoms of Castilla and Aragón started the colonization of the Americas, not an unified kingdom of Spain. When the kingdom of Spain started to flourish as an unified nation, the worst of the conquest of the natives was over. When they tried to improve the situation in the colonies, they were already engaged in wars all along Europe and the plundering of pirates and corsairs all over the caribbean.

Blame the castilians, or the unsupervised mercenaries that went there in the first place. The word "Spanish" in hardly well used there.

Farnhamia

13-09-2006, 16:38

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 16:41

You guys are misunderstanding what I´m saying. In my last post I said that Europe consists and has consisted of several nations. I was answering a man that thinks that there is some sort of single European Entity. So I think we agree on this.
For those that still don´t understand I´ll repeat my message:
There is neither today nor has there ever been a state called Europe!

There is, today, however a union of nations called EU or, for short (and inacurately) Europe[

I always wondered how it would be eating rotten food, molded bread and drinking dirty water. And let´s not forget dying from the flu, smallpox, typhoid, a swollen appendix or syphilis... Remember the lucky blind and deaf that were left out in forrests for the animals to kill because they were unwanted? Those were the days friends, those were the days...

Well, check out one of the former colonies in Africa then. I'm sure they'll be able to provide the full experience...

Dododecapod

13-09-2006, 16:55

Well, check out one of the former colonies in Africa then. I'm sure they'll be able to provide the full experience...

Surely. But don't blame the Imperial Powers for it. There's not a one of those states that has been independent less than fifty years, and none that didn't have a working economy and governmental system when the colonisers left.

The nations of Africa, by and large, are what they themselves have made of them.

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 17:03

Surely. But don't blame the Imperial Powers for it. There's not a one of those states that has been independent less than fifty years, and none that didn't have a working economy and governmental system when the colonisers left.

The nations of Africa, by and large, are what they themselves have made of them.

Ok, so.... European powers came in, colonised them, overthrew the existing government, uprooted social orders and superimposed a foreign religion and government.
Then they left and took everything with them that wasn't nailed down.

And you're now saying that African nations are what they made of themselves? :rolleyes:

Aelosia

13-09-2006, 17:09

I'm not sure that's true. Ferdinand and Isabella united the crowns of Castile and Aragon, did they not? And they conquered the last Moorish state, Granada, in 1492, so I do think you can talk about "Spain" as opposed to "Castile."

You can hardly talk about Spain until the rise of Carlos (Charles) I and V

Dododecapod

13-09-2006, 17:17

Ok, so.... European powers came in, colonised them, overthrew the existing government, uprooted social orders and superimposed a foreign religion and government.
Then they left and took everything with them that wasn't nailed down.

And you're now saying that African nations are what they made of themselves? :rolleyes:

Yes, I am. The colonial powers also left behind a stable social order, working economies and, in most cases, good relations with both themselves and neighbouring states.

Yes, there were problems. Disparate tribes with differing cultural and social values were forced to live together (how shocking!). Single product economies needed to diversify. Information and education networks needed to be expanded.

But the basics for good government, functioning and expanding economy, and the tools to solve these problems were in their hands.

So after fifty years of independence, these countries cannot now claim that their problems stem from colonisation. The problems were theirs to solve; if they have not solved them, or has unfortunately so often been the case, not TRIED to solve them, then the only people they have to blame, are themselves.

Farnhamia

13-09-2006, 17:18

You can hardly talk about Spain until the rise of Carlos (Charles) I and V

Which was perhaps 25 years later. However, I will stand partially corrected:

By 1512, most of the kingdoms of present-day Spain were politically unified by the crown, although not as a modern, centralized state. In contemporary minds, "Spain" was a geographic term that was more or less synonymous with Iberia, not the present-day state called Spain, although today's more restricted notion of it was beginning to gain in currency. As the old states continued to exist and function with their own laws, assemblies and administrations under one monarch, the title of the reigning Habsburgs was "The King of the Spaniards", not "Spain". The grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was called Carlos I of Castille and Aragon, extended his crown to other places in Europe and the rest of the world. The short-lived unification of Iberia was complete when Charles V's son ,became King of Portugal in 1580.

I still think that calling the empire of the Spaniards in the New World the "Spanish Empire" is okay, especially since it's an understood term.

New Mitanni

13-09-2006, 17:26

It was not, however, the Polynesians who went to Madagascar. They went south to NZ, north to Hawaii and east to Easter Island, but the furthest west they went was to create enclaves in Melanesia.

The Malagasy language is part of the Austronesian, or Malayo-Polynesian, language family ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0831333.html ), which means that the colonizers of Madagascar and the colonizers of Polynesia likely had common ancestry. So I'll revise my statement: Malayo-Polynesians colonized Madagascar, New Zealand, Hawaii, etc. Same result.

HotRodia

13-09-2006, 17:58

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 21:57

Yes, I am. The colonial powers also left behind a stable social order, working economies and, in most cases, good relations with both themselves and neighbouring states.

Yes, there were problems. Disparate tribes with differing cultural and social values were forced to live together (how shocking!). Single product economies needed to diversify. Information and education networks needed to be expanded.

But the basics for good government, functioning and expanding economy, and the tools to solve these problems were in their hands.

So after fifty years of independence, these countries cannot now claim that their problems stem from colonisation. The problems were theirs to solve; if they have not solved them, or has unfortunately so often been the case, not TRIED to solve them, then the only people they have to blame, are themselves.

They left no social order. They had enforced a social order that supported their leadership most and maintained it with military power. The economies they had built up in the colonies were focused entirely on the colonial power's benefit and with the withdrawal of what little funds they had put into the country in exchange, the industries struggled and collapsed.

Examples?
Look at India... the "industry" that was built up most of all was cotton plantations. Britain left the country, but the industry is simply the bottom of the market, built up only to form the basis of English secondary industries, processing the cotton and making the profit from the end sale. The wages absurdly poor during colonial times, and they still are. Only now the colonial power no longer dictates that plantations be used for cotton, so the owners find more profitable use for them.
That, along with the process in mechanisation and automation in the industry made the cotton market almost completely unprofitable for India.

Now, nobody is claiming that all the problems of the former colonies are the fault of the colonial powers. But neither is it true that none of the problems these nations have today are entirely their fault.

Oh, and forcing different cultures to live together in one country is never ever a good idea, no matter whose idea it is. Look ad Rwanda. Look at former Yugoslavia. Look at Chezcnia. Look at Sri Lanka. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at Taiwan.
The African map as we see it today is the biggest crime comitted by the European powers of the 19th century.

Ny Nordland

13-09-2006, 22:11

In the past 500 years Europe has

BAD
- destroyed the Incan and Aztec Civilization
- murdered an entire ethic group (Caribs all 2 million of them)
- rid most of the natives in South America
- Plundered amd stoled the riches of other countries
- Cause the extinction of several species of animals and plants(Dodo)
- Endangered hundreds of animals(The Bison)
- Working millions to death or in poor conditions
- The introduction of many alien species that destroys the enviroment
- Forcing the change of religion or death

GOOD
- Liberalisation
- democratic traditions
um.... Anything Else?

BAD:

- Slavery
- Cultural Destruction (for ex: melting of Aztec golds, a unique cultural heritage)
- Interferance with other cultures (artificial states which were drawn on map are still causing tensions today)

GOOD:

-Introduced scientific method. Scientific/Technological advancement was virtually at standstill in Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa. They are poor now but at least developing.
- Has caused a scientific and technological leap. This is very significant. From medicine to some of the most basic physics laws.
- Has produced an immense culture. From the American culture today to the classical musics to the most beautiful buildings in the world.
- Introduce the concept of state to many areas. If there were no colonisation, most of Africa might still be composed of tribes which would make it worse even than today. Too much decentralization is bad for development without a central state to build infrasture.

Gorias

13-09-2006, 23:04

There was no such thing as Europe 500 years ago.

moron.

Gorias

13-09-2006, 23:10

The land that evolved into Europe yes, but the state of Europe really?;)

europe isnt a state, retard. it is a continent. which the eu is named after.

Sel Appa

13-09-2006, 23:16

Well...we can't really change it so I can't take an opinion. :(

Cabra West

13-09-2006, 23:21

europe isnt a state, retard. it is a continent. which the eu is named after.

And, considering that this continent has yet to act as one entity internationally, it was entirely right to point out that "Europe" as a political unit didn't exist yet.

Gorias

13-09-2006, 23:27

bad.
-banning catholism.
-murdering catholics.
-taking land.
-famine.
-my granny not able to vote until the 70's.
-random shootings with tanks in sports arena.(near me).
-shooting unarmed civilians(again) in my grannys home town.

good.
-roads.

HotRodia

13-09-2006, 23:39

moron.

europe isnt a state, retard. it is a continent. which the eu is named after.

Please discontinue the personal attacks and stick to making your point.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Aquilonius Gloria

13-09-2006, 23:45

There is, today, however a union of nations called EU or, for short (and inacurately) Europe
Umm... NO!
EU stands for European Union, not all countries in Europe are members of the EU, and the EU has no power over the national governments concerning foreign affairs, and in the context of talking about colonization bringing up the EU is ridiculous!
The beginning of the EU was when "the Steel and Coal" agreement between West-Germany and France was signed in 1952, wich is approximately 50 years ago not 500.

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 00:33

My own view on the matter is that one can't make an omelette without breaking a few ancient, local cultures.

But how does the omelette taste? And who got to eat it? And did they really put the eggs in the omelette, or just break the eggs, take the best parts for themselves, and leave what was left of the eggs out on the counter to rot in the vain hopes they might go away? And then act surprised later when the eggs were still there, albeit somewhat broken?

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 00:43

Members of "European" or "Western" civilization who obsess about the past and put down their own civilizations (n.b.: not saying you fall into that category) remind me of someone who takes the position, "My mother was a whore, my father was a wife-beating drunk, so therefore I should never have been born."

And those who refuse to acknowledge the flaws and failings of their own civilizations doom us to mediocrity, stagnation and decline.

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 00:46

Where is Sinuhue when we need her?

Fadesaway

14-09-2006, 00:49

Is this thread for serious? :eek:

I would have thought everyone knew by now that colonialism was a bad thing.

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 01:44

This raises an interesting Question. How bad is the *idea* of colonialism. I mean, historically colonialism was evenly good and bad (IMO). While it was exploitative and destructive environmentally, it was massively beneficial to the future prosperity of these 'colonies' post liberation, seeing as they usually came out the other end with a decent economic infrastructure to build upon.

Here's my proposition. What if we reinstituted colonialism, but did it properly this time. That is don't exploit the people, don't introduce foriegn species, and so on. It would be something of a developed/underdeveloped buddy system. Everyone stands to benefit in both the short term and the long term. Then, when the country is fully developed they are given the choice to join the host nation (if both parties agree), or go back to their previous independent status pre-developement.

Psychotic Mongooses

14-09-2006, 02:13

Surely. But don't blame the Imperial Powers for it. There's not a one of those states that has been independent less than fifty years, and none that didn't have a working economy and governmental system when the colonisers left.

The nations of Africa, by and large, are what they themselves have made of them.

The (formally Belgian) Congo? Pretty much a failed state from the get go. Thats was the fault of the Belgians (or more accurately, their King).

GreaterPacificNations

14-09-2006, 02:19

The (formally Belgian) Congo? Pretty much a failed state from the get go. Thats was the fault of the Belgians (or more accurately, their King).

Ah but Africa...well, Africa is Africa. Savvy?

Psychotic Mongooses

14-09-2006, 02:26

bad.
-banning catholism. I got no problem with that. Just spread the ban out a bit.
-murdering catholics. Meh. Catholics smatholics. People were murdered for lots of reasons. 'Treason' or sedition probably the main reason.
-taking land. Can't really argue with that
-famine. Not colonialisms fault per se. More inept bureaucracy and capitalism gone mad. The 'famine' is over hyped- it only affected one crop.
-my granny not able to vote until the 70's. Where was that? Even with gerrymandering, everyone still got a vote.
-random shootings with tanks in sports arena.(near me).Care to elaborate?
-shooting unarmed civilians(again) in my grannys home town. Can't argue with that.

good.
-roads.
Education.
Postal system.
Legal sysytem.
General advancement of civilisation.

;)

Aquilonius Gloria

14-09-2006, 02:46

-I claim this land on behalf of his majesty the king of England!
*You can´t claim this land, we live here..!
-Well, do you have a flag?
*We don´t need no bloody flag we LIVE here!
-Well if you don´t have a flag you have no right to this land.
*How can you say that?!
-Those are the rules.
*What rules?
-The rules we just made up.

The fact is that the word colonialism is made up of normal consequences of history, and it should be used as a definition of a certain period, rather than a description of some sort of political movement.
Since the dawn of civilisation nations have been conquered, and the terms of peace or annexation set by the conqueror.
Should Rome have conquered Greece?
Should the Mongol Horde have conquered China?
Should the Russians have conquered their Far East territories?
Should Japan have conquered Korea?
Should the Normans have conquered the Anglo-Saxons?
Should the Zapotecs have been destroyed by Aztecs and Mayans?
Should the Zulus have been conquered by the British?

Colonialism Good or Bad, it´s really a stupid question.:headbang:

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 02:48

good.
-roads.

The Incas had good roads too.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:49

Admittedly, some good came out of European colonialism, but it was accomplished through unbelievable horrors and bloodshed on a scale unimaginable. Overall, I would say the bad outweighs the good.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 02:51

The (formally Belgian) Congo? Pretty much a failed state from the get go. Thats was the fault of the Belgians (or more accurately, their King).

Define "failed." The bastard Leopold made a killing (bad pun) from the Belgian Congo, just as he intended. If by "failed" you mean caused a holocaust of proportions rarely matched in history, then yes, it failed miserably. Wiping out 50% of a country's population is an "accomplishment" even Pol Pot couldn't match.

Vetalia

14-09-2006, 02:51

Well, it was good for the Europeans and bad for the natives.

But that's the way any dramatic changes tend to be...there's always a winner and a loser, and in this case it was the natives who lost.

Psychotic Mongooses

14-09-2006, 03:01

Define "failed." The bastard Leopold made a killing (bad pun) from the Belgian Congo, just as he intended. If by "failed" you mean caused a holocaust of proportions rarely matched in history, then yes, it failed miserably. Wiping out 50% of a country's population is an "accomplishment" even Pol Pot couldn't match.

No, I meant 'failed' as in it had been gutted of its bureaucracy, technocracy and capable adminstrators overnight when the Belgian's withdrew. From the off, they were in a shambles- not of their own doing. They never really had a chance.

I'm well aware of the acts committed in the personal possession of Leopold.

Aryavartha

14-09-2006, 03:22

Examples?
Look at India... the "industry" that was built up most of all was cotton plantations. Britain left the country, but the industry is simply the bottom of the market, built up only to form the basis of English secondary industries, processing the cotton and making the profit from the end sale. The wages absurdly poor during colonial times, and they still are. Only now the colonial power no longer dictates that plantations be used for cotton, so the owners find more profitable use for them.
That, along with the process in mechanisation and automation in the industry made the cotton market almost completely unprofitable for India.

India's recent economic successes and its general rise in stature are often touted as the result of colonialism. This view fails to take into account why the country became poor in the first place. During the 1500s India and China accounted for 50% of the worlds GDP and India's share declined to less than 1% when the British left us. Britain banned homegrown industries and just extracted raw materials and dumped manufactured goods on us. An enterprising country with lots of employment for cottage industries became an agricultural colony with all those workers becoming landless labourers caught in chronic poverty - a spectre which still haunts India.

Not to mention the various rounds of famines which killed millions. Funnily enough, independant India never had a chronic famine despite an exploding population and the same fickle monsoon. So much for "well the natives don't know how to govern themselves, let us show them how..":rolleyes:

Andaluciae

14-09-2006, 03:27

Mix of both. Depends on which power was doing the colonizing to tell which way the mix leaned. The French were terrible at it, the Germans so-so (with what little they had) and the British were actually pretty decent. Spaniards get a so-so as well.

Cabra West

14-09-2006, 08:10

Umm... NO!
EU stands for European Union, not all countries in Europe are members of the EU, and the EU has no power over the national governments concerning foreign affairs, and in the context of talking about colonization bringing up the EU is ridiculous!
The beginning of the EU was when "the Steel and Coal" agreement between West-Germany and France was signed in 1952, wich is approximately 50 years ago not 500.

That's why I specifically pointed out that calling the EU Europe is inacurate. :rolleyes:

Cabra West

14-09-2006, 08:14

India's recent economic successes and its general rise in stature are often touted as the result of colonialism. This view fails to take into account why the country became poor in the first place. During the 1500s India and China accounted for 50% of the worlds GDP and India's share declined to less than 1% when the British left us. Britain banned homegrown industries and just extracted raw materials and dumped manufactured goods on us. An enterprising country with lots of employment for cottage industries became an agricultural colony with all those workers becoming landless labourers caught in chronic poverty - a spectre which still haunts India.

Not to mention the various rounds of famines which killed millions. Funnily enough, independant India never had a chronic famine despite an exploding population and the same fickle monsoon. So much for "well the natives don't know how to govern themselves, let us show them how..":rolleyes:

"When they fail, it's their own fault. When they succeed, it's the result of the positive influence of colonialism."

;)

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 13:26

The Malagasy language is part of the Austronesian, or Malayo-Polynesian, language family ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0831333.html ), which means that the colonizers of Madagascar and the colonizers of Polynesia likely had common ancestry. So I'll revise my statement: Malayo-Polynesians colonized Madagascar, New Zealand, Hawaii, etc. Same result.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was just correcting your mild factual inaccuracy. ;)

If you think a poster is not worth the effort, it's probably a good idea to avoid flaming them, even if only mildly. Why risk getting reported and warned over someone who's not worth it?

Sorry. I just get a bit... well, annoyed sometimes. I'll be careful to remain civil.

Congo--Kinshasa

14-09-2006, 14:02

No, I meant 'failed' as in it had been gutted of its bureaucracy, technocracy and capable adminstrators overnight when the Belgian's withdrew.

Many of them remained after independence. It was only after the country descended into hell (which, admittedly, was just days after independence) that most of them withdrew.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 14:04

Gorias

14-09-2006, 14:08

;)

i didnt see any advancement. as for education system. if anything it made it worse. england has a terrible education system. not as bad as a america though, but still shit compared to developed and most half way developed countries.

Rubiconic Crossings

14-09-2006, 14:11

Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES:
The aqueduct?
REG:
What?
XERXES:
The aqueduct.
REG:
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3:
And the sanitation.
LORETTA:
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG:
Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS:
And the roads.
REG:
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO:
Irrigation.
XERXES:
Medicine.
COMMANDOS:
Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2:
Education.
COMMANDOS:
Ohh...
REG:
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1:
And the wine.
COMMANDOS:
Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS:
Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO:
Public baths.
LORETTA:
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES:
Brought peace.
REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!

Psychotic Mongooses

14-09-2006, 15:05

i didnt see any advancement. as for education system. if anything it made it worse.
Worse than what? Nothing? Because there was no education system before the colonisation of the island.

Gorias

14-09-2006, 15:07

Worse than what? Nothing? Because there was no education system before the colonisation of the island.

during the time there was barely an education system anywhere.

Haken Rider

14-09-2006, 15:20

No, I meant 'failed' as in it had been gutted of its bureaucracy, technocracy and capable adminstrators overnight when the Belgian's withdrew. From the off, they were in a shambles- not of their own doing. They never really had a chance.

I'm well aware of the acts committed in the personal possession of Leopold.

Granted, all the important jobs had been done by Belgians, as was commen practice with colonization. But I don't think it's completely the fault of Belgium. There was a lot of international pressure to de-colonize. The Congolese themsleves wanted independce as soon as possible. Belgium just didn't had the gut nor the chance to keep foot for several more years to raise capable locals that could run the country on their own.

On a side-note: it's not entirely right to assume that Europeans plundered regions and kept all the wealth. Many nations needed to send money to their colonies, instead of the other way around. Probably the main reason for the de-colonalization.

And, in general, to see if colonization in the end was good or bad for a nation/region.
Northern colonization: good (USA, Australia, South-Africa,...)
Southern Europans colonization: bad (South-America,...)

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 15:27

And, in general, to see if colonization in the end was good or bad for a nation/region.
Northern colonization: good (USA, Australia, South-Africa,...)
Southern Europans colonization: bad (South-America,...)

Are you seriously saying that colonisation was good for Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians and indigenous South Africans?!

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 15:35

Are you seriously saying that colonisation was good for Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians and indigenous South Africans?!

For the modern descendents of those populations, hell yes. Trust an Eastern European on this.

Haken Rider

14-09-2006, 15:37

Are you seriously saying that colonisation was good for Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians and indigenous South Africans?!
Not good, but preferable. That's what I ment.

Radical Centrists

14-09-2006, 15:51

You have to suspend any and all moral or value judgments when looking over history. The world today is how it is directly because of everything that came before. We are the sum of all consequences, for better or for worse. The only reason we find ourselves in a place to issue moral evaluations is because our opinions are the result of what we evaluate.

It happened. We are here because it did. End of story.

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 15:59

For the modern descendents of those populations, hell yes. Trust an Eastern European on this.

Not good, but preferable. That's what I ment.

Funny how all the Aboriginals I've talked to disagree with that assessment...

I'm not saying their life was idyllic before they were invaded, but no-one who's knowledgeable in Australian history would claim the invasion of Australia by the British was good for its Indigenous peoples. Being driven off your land, massacred, watching your women and children sexually abused, being herded into reserves and exploited, denied any say in the managing of your own life until the 1960s, losing your culture and sense of identity, being constantly told you're inferior and worthless, being a woman subjected to forced sterilisation when you go to hospital, having your children taken from you (until the 1970s) is hardly something you're going to feel joyous and thankful about.

Cullons

14-09-2006, 16:07

In the past 500 years Europe has

BAD
- destroyed the Incan and Aztec Civilization
So? When 2 civilizations clash, that's what happens.
- murdered an entire ethic group (Caribs all 2 million of them)
I believe a majority of this was through deseases such as smallpox, influenza, measles and typhus. They were treated terribly, yes but that was empires back then.
- rid most of the natives in South America
eh? North america yes, but south america. There are plenty of native americans in South america aswell as meztizos
- Plundered amd stoled the riches of other countries
Again, that's what empires did.
- Cause the extinction of several species of animals and plants(Dodo)
Hell at least europe learnt from this lesson. Petty the rest of the world has not
- Endangered hundreds of animals(The Bison)
See previous answer
- Working millions to death or in poor conditions
We stopped this long ago. Still waiting for the rest of the world....
- The introduction of many alien species that destroys the enviroment
That's been going on long before the europeans started it. What do you expect?
- Forcing the change of religion or death
again most of the world has been guilty of this at some point

GOOD
- Liberalisation
- democratic traditions
um.... Anything Else?
End of slavery.
Industrialisation
enlightenment.
socialism
and i sure a few more things

Cullons

14-09-2006, 16:11

the crusades and permamently disrupting peace in the middle east
they started it. Muslims invaded christian land before christians invaded muslim. it was all stupid
slaughter of the aboriginies in australia
slaughter of the native americans in north america
yes that's what empires did. Also as previously mentioned desease did alot of it too
the slave trade with africa.
The arabs had been doing way longer than the europeans yet no-one ever mentions it. At least europe ended the slave trade.

Haken Rider

14-09-2006, 16:12

Funny how all the Aboriginals I've talked to disagree with that assessment...

I'm not saying their life was idyllic before they were invaded, but no-one who's knowledgeable in Australian history would claim the invasion of Australia by the British was good for its Indigenous peoples. Being driven off your land, massacred, watching your women and children sexually abused, being herded into reserves and exploited, denied any say in the managing of your own life until the 1960s, losing your culture and sense of identity, being constantly told you're inferior and worthless, being a woman subjected to forced sterilisation when you go to hospital, having your children taken from you (until the 1970s) is hardly something you're going to feel joyous and thankful about.
I really should learn to be more specific. I ment preferable to Spaniards/Portugese marching in.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 16:13

Funny how all the Aboriginals I've talked to disagree with that assessment...
Bleah. Just pay them a one way ticket to Romania. They'll get back to Australia before you know it.

As a Romanian, I can also complain about the Mongol invasion, the Tatar raids (they lasted until the XVIIIth century) in which they pillaged the land, raped the women, enslaved the able bodied adults and killed the rest, the child tax payable to the Turks or the general economic stagnation created by the constant Tatar raids, the extortionate tributes to be payed to the Turks, the constant wars against them and the general insecurity generated by these events (the population density was higher in the mountains than in the plains as late as the 1840's). Of course, all the above are due to the Asian imperialism, right? :rolleyes:

Cullons

14-09-2006, 16:17

And those who refuse to acknowledge the flaws and failings of their own civilizations doom us to mediocrity, stagnation and decline.

china, india, japan, etc... don't seem all that doomed...;)

Aelosia

14-09-2006, 16:18

I really should learn to be more specific. I ment preferable to Spaniards/Portugese marching in.

Well... No, the ethnics present in portuguese/spanish areas managed to survive more and better than in those areas under british rule. Former spanish/portuguese colonies have more aborigine presence, and those groups have managed to preserve their culture ten times better.

I know the spanish and the portugueses werent good, but they were not worse than the british empire. The british were the worst. Compare North America with South America regarding that.

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 16:21

I really should learn to be more specific. I ment preferable to Spaniards/Portugese marching in.

Ah. OK. Of course, it was a whole different century, but you're probably right.

Bleah. Just pay them a one way ticket to Romania. They'll get back to Australia before you know it.

Some may; some may not. But your logic (if A is bad and B is bad, but A is arguably worse than B, then B must be good) is rather... peculiar.

As a Romanian, I can also complain about the Mongol invasion, the Tatar raids (they lasted until the XVIIIth century) in which they pillaged the land, raped the women, enslaved the able bodied adults and killed the rest, the child tax payable to the Turks or the general economic stagnation created by the constant Tatar raids, the extortionate tributes to be payed to the Turks, the constant wars against them and the general insecurity generated by these events (the population density was higher in the mountains than in the plains as late as the 1840's). Of course, all the above are due to the Asian imperialism, right? :rolleyes:

Except that

a) you're not a minority in your own country, still subjected today to Asian rule, and

b) those events do not affect your daily life today.

A bit of a difference there, wouldn't you say?

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 16:22

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 16:25

Actually, the differences are due to initial disparities in the population density of those regions.

They're also due to the difference between colonies the British settled in, displacing the indigenous inhabitants, and colonies they ruled while remaining a minority (albeit dominant) presence.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 16:27

Some may; some may not. But your logic (if A is bad and B is bad, but A is arguably worse than B, then B must be good) is rather... peculiar.
You didn't get it. The modern day aboriginals live much better than their ancestors and than most of the inhabitants of our planet exactly because the British colonised Australia. Hence my point that colonisation was good for the modern day Aboriginals. And please don't tell me they'd be happier living like their ancestors.

Except that

a) you're not a minority in your own country, still subjected today to Asian rule, and

b) those events do not affect your daily life today.

A bit of a difference there, wouldn't you say?
a) It would have been much better for all Romanians if we had been a minority in our own country, subjected to the British rule.

b) No shit? :rolleyes:

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 16:33

They're also due to the difference between colonies the British settled in, displacing the indigenous inhabitants, and colonies they ruled while remaining a minority (albeit dominant) presence.

Climate decided that, regardless of who owned the colony. You don't find too many natives in Argentina, and many of those are recent immigrants. The Europeans generally settled massively only where:

1) they found a good temperate climate,

2) the population was fairly sparse and not very technologically advanced.

Thus, North and southern South America, Australia and New Zeeland were the main targets, since they fulfilled both conditions. China or Japan were not, because they did not fulfill point 2. Equatorial Africa or Amazonia again were not right, because of point 1.

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 16:41

You didn't get it. The modern day aboriginals live much better than their ancestors and than most of the inhabitants of our planet exactly because the British colonised Australia. Hence my point that colonisation was good for the modern day Aboriginals. And please don't tell me they'd be happier living like their ancestors.

I don't intend to, although one could argue that point. But then it's hardly that simple. And I refer you back to my earlier post; there's no way you can possibly claim that being colonised by the British was good for Aboriginals. It may have been better than being colonised by someone else (although it could hardly have been worse), but that doesn't mean it was, by any stretch of the imagination, good.

a) It would have been much better for all Romanians if we had been a minority in our own country, subjected to the British rule.

You're fully entitled to think so. "Better", perhaps; and again, "better" or "not as bad" does not mean "good", nor does it mean "not ghastly". And in that case I must ask you whether - to take just one example - you would have been happy surrendering your children to the occupying forces so that they could be brought up by the invaders?

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 16:43

Climate decided that, regardless of who owned the colony. You don't find too many natives in Argentina, and many of those are recent immigrants. The Europeans generally settled massively only where:

1) they found a good temperate climate,

2) the population was fairly sparse and not very technologically advanced.

Thus, North and southern South America, Australia and New Zeeland were the main targets, since they fulfilled both conditions. China or Japan were not, because they did not fulfill point 2. Equatorial Africa or Amazonia again were not right, because of point 1.

Indeed. I wasn't saying the opposite, was I? I was merely adding an important remark to what had been said - namely, that the identity of the colonising power was not the only factor in the treatment of indigenous peoples. Which is apparently what you're saying too.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 16:54

I don't intend to, although one could argue that point. But then it's hardly that simple. And I refer you back to my earlier post; there's no way you can possibly claim that being colonised by the British was good for Aboriginals. It may have been better than being colonised by someone else (although it could hardly have been worse), but that doesn't mean it was, by any stretch of the imagination, good.
I was only talking about the modern day Aboriginals. If Australia hadn't been colonised by the British, the Aboriginals would still be living like they did 10000 years ago. Since I haven't heard of Aboriginals leaving the cities to go live in the bush, my conclusion is they actually prefer it this way.

You're fully entitled to think so. "Better", perhaps; and again, "better" or "not as bad" does not mean "good", nor does it mean "not ghastly". And in that case I must ask you whether - to take just one example - you would have been happy surrendering your children to the occupying forces so that they could be brought up by the invaders?
1) Have you heard about the Jannisaries?

2) I must repeat, I was talking about the modern day Aboriginals. And, as far as I know, what you're talking about is a thing of the past.

Reagrding your next post, yes indeed.

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 17:05

I was only talking about the modern day Aboriginals. If Australia hadn't been colonised by the British, the Aboriginals would still be living like they did 10000 years ago. Since I haven't heard of Aboriginals leaving the cities to go live in the bush, my conclusion is they actually prefer it this way.

On that latter point, you're mistaken. Many Aboriginals still do live in the bush - although many are indeed urbanised.

But yes, the horrors that were still prevalent in the 1970s have now disappeared. Still, their legacy continues. Aboriginal women who, as part of Australian racist eugenics policies, were subjected to forced sterilisation forty or so years ago are still alive today, and still have to live with what was done to them. Mothers whose children were taken from them in the 70s, and who have never seen them since, also still have to live with that. Aboriginal adults who, as children, were part of the "Stolen Generations" face many difficulties today, and it's often said that Aboriginals on the whole live in Third World conditions in the midst of a First World society.

In some aspects, they were indeed better off in the mid eighteenth century, before invasion. But not in all aspects, obviously, so I'm not going to attempt to simplify the issue in that way.

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 17:08

1) Have you heard about the Jannisaries?

Turkish soldiers who attacked Europe circa the 15th century, no? What about them?

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 17:14

Turkish soldiers who attacked Europe circa the 15th century, no? What about them?

They were actually European Christian children taken from their families and raised as Turkish soldiers. The Janissaries corps was dismantled in the XIXth century.

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 17:27

So, let's see ...

European colonialists were bad people
North European colonialists may have been worse bad people than Southern Europeans
Europeans may have contributed some good things to human culture globally
The jury's still out on whether European contributions outweigh the bad things they did

Is that about it? So then, what should happen now? Shall we have the European colonial powers and their descendants (the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (old style)) apologize? I'll apologize for the US right here: I'm very sorry my countrymen (can't say ancestors because mine didn't get here until the 20th century) in the past several centuries did bad things to the indigenous peoples of North America. I wish they hadn't, they only made themselves and the rest of us afterwards look bad in the eyes of the world. Right now we can't exactly afford reparations and because of the way things have turned out, I'm afraid you aren't going to get your land back. We can, however, offer you some pretty decent education systems and a certain amount of economic and social opportunity. So, it's okay to come off the reservations now. I know "assimilation" is a dirty word, but it doesn't mean you have to give up your culture or world-view. It only means joining the rest of the nation in trying to make a good life for everyone.

There.

I'm still waiting for the thread on how the Etruscans were the foundation of all western civilization and how the Greek language is a recent arrival in Europe.

New Xero Seven

14-09-2006, 17:29

It has certainly divided the world into rich and poor.

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 17:33

It has certainly divided the world into rich and poor.

The world has always been divided into rich and poor, at least since people stopped hunting and gathering and settled down in villages. It's just that some rich people are now far richer than before.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 17:46

It has certainly divided the world into rich and poor.

I don't think modern day Ugandans live worse than they did 1000 years ago. It may be even argued they have a markedly improved existence, considering the unprecedented rate with which their population is expanding.

Ariddia

14-09-2006, 18:24

They were actually European Christian children taken from their families and raised as Turkish soldiers. The Janissaries corps was dismantled in the XIXth century.

Ah, all right. Thanks for the info.

Farnhamia, it's very good of you to apologise on behalf of your country. I'll chime in and apologise, on behalf of France, for all the terrible things my country has done to the many peoples it's colonised.

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 18:26

Ah, all right. Thanks for the info.

Farnhamia, it's very good of you to apologise on behalf of your country. I'll chime in and apologise, on behalf of France, for all the terrible things my country has done to the many peoples it's colonised.

Now we're getting somewhere. And by the way, I for one find "French surrender monkey" jokes unfunny. We can certainly find better things to make fun of each other's countries for. ;)

Peepelonia

14-09-2006, 18:28

Now we're getting somewhere. And by the way, I for one find "French surrender monkey" jokes unfunny. We can certainly find better things to make fun of each other's countries for. ;)

Ahh come on now, we are still allowed to take the piss out of the French aint we? Come on fares fare, if they can call us Roast Beef, then surly we can call them Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys?

Aelosia

14-09-2006, 18:30

Actually, the differences are due to initial disparities in the population density of those regions.

Ehm, no. The difference is in the amount of survivors.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 18:33

Ehm, no. The difference is in the amount of survivors.

So you want me to believe that Mesoamerica, for example, had similar population densities with Argentina?

Cullons

14-09-2006, 18:41

I'll say sorry for Britain + Spain.

SORRY!!!!!

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 18:45

Ahh come on now, we are still allowed to take the piss out of the French aint we? Come on fares fare, if they can call us Roast Beef, then surly we can call them Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys?

Cheese-eating, sure, but their military record is actually pretty damn good on the whole, from the late 18th century on. Sure, Napoleon was eventually beaten but even by his own standards he was past his prime, and the war with the Prussians in 1870 didn't exactly go well, either. We won't mention WWII because just about everyone got their heads handed to them by Adolph and the Boys in Grey.

It's just that this latest round of French-bashing is a little meaner. There are plenty of threads out there already on that subject, so we'll let it lie, shall we?

And I still want my Etruscan thread! (Maybe we can start one about Eutrusca and pretend?)

Gorias

14-09-2006, 18:47

Aelosia

14-09-2006, 18:54

So you want me to believe that Mesoamerica, for example, had similar population densities with Argentina?

Mesoamerica, or Centroamerica, was largely unpopulated at the time of the arrival of the spanish conquistadores, if I might add (Mexico is classified as North America now).

Argentina had also zones of high population density, back then.

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 18:55

i can asure you that most people wouldnt accept being taken over and thier life being improved if it ment thier kins men being murdered. people like to develope themselves. the english are just greedy and only think of thier own gain. not as bad as before but they still are invading countries.

i'm hugely anti-war. thier is no reason to fight, unless someone attacks you.

I wonder what do you think abut the Turks...

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 18:57

Mesoamerica, or Centroamerica, was largely unpopulated at the time of the arrival of the spanish conquistadores, if I might add (Mexico is classified as North America now).

Argentina had also zones of high population density, back then.

Pre-Columbian Argentina had zones of high population density? I'd never heard that. Sources, please?

Dontgonearthere

14-09-2006, 19:02

Are you talking about the Caribes? Good thing they (my ancestors) got rid of them. They were cannibal monsters barely deserving the right to live. Their civilization was criminal, to say the least. And no, "respect to their culture" do not means to let them plunder, sack, enslave, kill and devour all other human beings around, with the Caribes, it was self defense.

About the Incan and Aztec civilization...Well, poor incans, I know they were the good lot, even with their flaws. They were advanced, and partially civilized. The Aztecs weren't a good bunch, although, just another militaristic civilization that dwelled in dangerous and criminal customs. With the aztecs, I say they played the "let's see who's more badass" game with the spanish, and lost, suffering the standards consequences.

'Partially civilized'? What the hell do you consider civilized?
Governemnt? The Inca had a buerocracy to match the Chinese.
Military organization? Yup, thats done.
Taxes? Got 'em.
Construction? Yeah, they did build 14,000 miles of roads.
Tolerance? The Incans were a hell of a lot more tolerant than the Spanish.
An empire? One the size of the orginal American colonies.

Sure, they rarely flayed people alive on top of mountains, but Europeans were burning people at the stake during the same time period. AND they wiped out the entire Inca civilization because the Sapa Inca threw the bible on the ground when they arrived.

The Aztecs were pretty damn civilized in their own way, they did things European countries definitly couldnt have done during the same time period.

Gorias

14-09-2006, 19:02

I wonder what do you think abut the Turks...

not a history expert. but i am aware of the horrible things then did to romania. and more recently to armenia. although i wouldnt hold it against any turkish person, aslong as they understand they were wrong.

Aelosia

14-09-2006, 19:03

Pre-Columbian Argentina had zones of high population density? I'd never heard that. Sources, please?

Have heard about the Patagon indians?. they were a fairly spreaded, abundant population back then.

Aelosia

14-09-2006, 19:06

'Partially civilized'? What the hell do you consider civilized?
Governemnt? The Inca had a buerocracy to match the Chinese.
Military organization? Yup, thats done.
Taxes? Got 'em.
Construction? Yeah, they did build 14,000 miles of roads.
Tolerance? The Incans were a hell of a lot more tolerant than the Spanish.
An empire? One the size of the orginal American colonies.

Sure, they rarely flayed people alive on top of mountains, but Europeans were burning people at the stake during the same time period. AND they wiped out the entire Inca civilization because the Sapa Inca threw the bible on the ground when they arrived.

The Aztecs were pretty damn civilized in their own way, they did things European countries definitly couldnt have done during the same time period.

The point for your argument being?

I said they were advanced and partially civilized.

Europe back then was also advanced and partially civilized.

I am from Latinoamérica, I am not a racist against my people or myself, ok?

You are the "ones" overreacting and oversizing things.

I was defending the incans, y' know?

Falhaar2

14-09-2006, 19:09

I was only talking about the modern day Aboriginals. If Australia hadn't been colonised by the British, the Aboriginals would still be living like they did 10000 years ago. Since I haven't heard of Aboriginals leaving the cities to go live in the bush, my conclusion is they actually prefer it this way. I'll make you a deal; I won't make foolish assumptions about elements of your culture which I know next to zero about, if you do the same.

The Aboriginal people were fucking massacred for 200 years. There was a systematic effort to utterly destroy their race, culture and beliefs. It was incredibly effective. Of the 750 different dialects once spoken by the native populace, only 200 remain, only 20 of which haven't been nearly completely eradicated. You know why Aboriginals haven't "moved into the bush"? They couldn't fucking survive if they tried, settlers totally destroyed the social and family fabric of the native populace. Wiping out hundreds of distictive religions, methods of survival and cultural texts.

Not to mention there is a catastrophic level of poverty, alchoholism, drug-abuse, crime and suicide amongst the native populace, particularly in urban areas. None of these probelms were pervasive during the first 40,000 years or so of Aboriginal existence, I guess they just happened via magic, right? Certainly it couldn't be because of the horrific genocidal campaign of the "benevolent" European power who classified the natives as fucking "fauna".

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 19:11

Mesoamerica, or Centroamerica, was largely unpopulated at the time of the arrival of the spanish conquistadores, if I might add (Mexico is classified as North America now).

Argentina had also zones of high population density, back then.

Map of Mesoamerica (http://www.famsi.org/maps/)

And another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mesoamerica_english.PNG)

The term Mesoamérica is used to refer to a geographical region that extends roughly from the Tropic of Cancer in central Mexico down through Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua to northwestern Costa Rica,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica

I wouldn't say that that area was "largely unpopulated" in the early XVIth century. And Patagonians "abundant"? In comparison with what other population? The Inuits, maybe? :D

Bogmihia

14-09-2006, 19:28

Falhaar2, cool down, okay? If you use this tone when talking about the British, then how would you discuss about Hitler or Pol Pot? Are you honestly saying the average Aboriginal person living at the present time in Australia would rather live a hunter-gatherer life?

Haken Rider

14-09-2006, 21:34

Well... No, the ethnics present in portuguese/spanish areas managed to survive more and better than in those areas under british rule. Former spanish/portuguese colonies have more aborigine presence, and those groups have managed to preserve their culture ten times better.

I know the spanish and the portugueses werent good, but they were not worse than the british empire. The british were the worst. Compare North America with South America regarding that.
Ok, I shall compare.

South America: Murdering all who resist in search for gold. Decimating local population by forcing slavery on them and letting them survive on grass. Forcing catholicism on them. Melting their culture into gold bricks...

North America: buying land with worthless pearls, taking the rest. As little as possible interaction with both cultures. No slavery I can remember. Fought with them for land or because they were allied with a European foe of Britain...

New Bretonnia

14-09-2006, 21:49

Ok, I shall compare.

South America: Murdering all who resist in search for gold. Decimating local population by forcing slavery on them and letting them survive on grass. Forcing catholicism on them. Melting their culture into gold bricks...

North America: buying land with worthless pearls, taking the rest. As little as possible interaction with both cultures. No slavery I can remember. Fought with them for land or because they were allied with a European foe of Britain...

Gonna have to agree here. However fragmented, at least some tribes of North American culture have survived to this day. Not so in Central and South America. I've met real live Cherokee, but I'll bet nobody alive today has met a real live Aztec or Maya.

Haken Rider

14-09-2006, 21:53

Gonna have to agree here. However fragmented, at least some tribes of North American culture have survived to this day. Not so in Central and South America. I've met real live Cherokee, but I'll bet nobody alive today has met a real live Aztec or Maya.
You agree? But than I can't argue with you. :(

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 22:00

New Bretonnia

14-09-2006, 22:01

You agree? But than I can't argue with you. :(

haha! PWNED!

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 22:03

Not good, but preferable. That's what I ment.
Well, it's not like we gave them the choice to decide that one for themselves now did we? But please explain.

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 22:06

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 22:09

2) the population was fairly sparse and not very technologically advanced.

In many cases the societies were fairly technologically advanced, they just happened to be extremely susceptible to European diseases. The colonists were quite happy to adopt many of the technologies used by the natives.

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 22:11

Trust an Eastern European on this. What does this have to do with anything?

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 22:11

In many cases the societies were fairly technologically advanced, they just happened to be extremely susceptible to European diseases. The colonists were quite happy to adopt many of the technologies used by the natives.

Which colonized nations had ships and guns and cannons and manufacturing on a scale with 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century Europe? Granted the NA peoples did teach the Puritans & Pilgrims something about farming but I don't think that qualifies as "technology."

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 22:27

Which colonized nations had ships and guns and cannons and manufacturing on a scale with 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century Europe?

Of course they didn't, because all of the technologies you are talking about are European (and even manufacturing did not take place on a majro scale in Europe until the industrial revolution, which started long after colonization, and would probably have not been possible without the proceeds of despoiling the "New World"). They may not have had ships, but they had boats which are still in widespread use (and extremely useful for the purposes for which they were designed), such as canoes and kayaks. (And remember that the Polynesians were travelling the length of the Pacific when Europeans were still afraid to leave the Mediterranean ... they had some pretty advanced navigation techniques). In Canada, we continue to use their basis design for certain articles of clothing, such as parkas.

Granted the NA peoples did teach the Puritans & Pilgrims something about farming but I don't think that qualifies as "technology."

How does it not? Better techniques for doing things (be it farming or whatever) are every bit as much technological advances as the things you discussed above. The colonists would not have survived one winter in North American without the things the natives taught them.

Haken Rider

14-09-2006, 22:38

haha! PWNED!

Outsmartend. Damn you! Damn you to Russia!

Well, it's not like we gave them the choice to decide that one for themselves now did we? But please explain.
Hmmm? That English colonization was better than Portuguese/Spanish?

I didn't say that they could choose. Would be kind of weird if they could though. And there needed to be a catalogue!

Spaniards:
we guirantee you a job (slavery) and healthy food (grass). We'll build a nice big church. Each Spaniard comes with 5 types of diseases that can kill you.
Cost: all your gold, culture, and the lives of 9/10 of your people.

English:
we will give you shiny pearls! Lots of them! Just don't get in our way. Each Englishmen comes with big, yucky theeth and an ever-lasting pale skin.
Costs: 9/10 of your territorry.

Farnhamia

14-09-2006, 22:38

Of course they didn't, because all of the technologies you are talking about are European (and even manufacturing did not take place on a majro scale in Europe until the industrial revolution, which started long after colonization, and would probably have not been possible without the proceeds of despoiling the "New World"). They may not have had ships, but they had boats which are still in widespread use (and extremely useful for the purposes for which they were designed), such as canoes and kayaks. (And remember that the Polynesians were travelling the length of the Pacific when Europeans were still afraid to leave the Mediterranean ... they had some pretty advanced navigation techniques). In Canada, we continue to use their basis design for certain articles of clothing, such as parkas.

How does it not? Better techniques for doing things (be it farming or whatever) are every bit as much technological advances as the things you discussed above. The colonists would not have survived one winter in North American without the things the natives taught them.

Perhaps I might have said that the farming tips wouldn't qualify as "fairly technologically advanced," which I don't think they were. Reading your post one might think that when the English settlers landed in New England in 1620 and 1630, they were met by people who could match them on a standard of living and technology basis. That's simply not true. The Indians were a Neolithic people using stone tools, with some agriculture and a good deal of hunting and gathering. Granted they were better agriculturalists than the English but that could be because the English settlers didn't come from rural backgrounds (I don't know this for a fact but it's possible). I myself would not last a New England winter under those conditions. But the natives had no metal-working (a bit of copper use in the Midwest around the Great Lakes where the metal occurs on the surface or near it in almost pure form). No very large cities. No industry.

As for the Polynesians sailing the Pacific while Europeans were cowering in the Med, well, we could debate the cowering part and I'll grant you the very admirable sailing abilities. Again, where was Polynesian industry?

You may argue that Western ideals of industrial society are not ones to emulate, but don't let on that the indigenous peoples who came up against European colonists were their technological equals.

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 23:02

Hmmm? That English colonization was better than Portuguese/Spanish?

Not that colonization was better than no colonization. In a weird kind of sense, they did sometimes get to pick who their colonizers were, because they often formed alliances or picked sides in a given dispute, thereby assisting in determining who would control the territory.

Evil Cantadia

14-09-2006, 23:09

Reading your post one might think that when the English settlers landed in New England in 1620 and 1630, they were met by people who could match them on a standard of living and technology basis.

I really don't think that anyone could get that from reading my post, because that is not what I said. I merely said that in some ways, these societies were quite technologically advanced (the Incas had excellent roads, for example). From a "standard of living" standpoint they probably could not match the settlers, but from a quality of life standpoint they probably could. With the exception of a small wealthy elite, life for most Europeans in colonial times was nasty, brutish and short. Life expectancy was crap, disease was rampant, etc. By contrast, the remains of hunter gatherers showed that they enjoyed a varied diet which led to strong bones and height, and other signs of good health. Europeans by contrast were short, stooped and sickly.

Granted they were better agriculturalists than the English but that could be because the English settlers didn't come from rural backgrounds (I don't know this for a fact but it's possible). I myself would not last a New England winter under those conditions. But the natives had no metal-working (a bit of copper use in the Midwest around the Great Lakes where the metal occurs on the surface or near it in almost pure form). No very large cities. No industry.

Again, you ar judging them against purely European advances in terms of what is "Advanced" and what is not.

You may argue that Western ideals of industrial society are not ones to emulate, but don't let on that the indigenous peoples who came up against European colonists were their technological equals.

I argue that European ideals of agrarian society were not the ones to emulate (European industrial society did not come into existence until well into the colonial period). And I don't.

Trotskylvania

15-09-2006, 01:35

A couple of things that have not been mentioned
-Azteks sacrificed thousands of humans by cutting out their hearts wile the victims still were alive.
-Europeans unfied technology from the east and philosohy from the west, wich braught was the foundation of travels across the globe.
-Europeans did not singlehandedly populate the world.
-It is wrong to speak of Europeans as one people because we are in fact many nations with hudreds of different cultures and langueges.
-Lord Sandwich invented the...yes...the "Sandwich".
-When speaking of Philosophy Europe have hundreds of them. Aristotle, Socrates, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Emmanuel Kant, René Descartes, Baron de Montesqieu and so on and so forth.
-Yes many Europeans have done some shitty things but so have people in every country and nation. Because Castro is a murderer and a theif, doesn´t mean that every Cuban is. Althoug Stalin was crazy, doesn´t mean that every Russian is (or Georgian, Stalin was originally from Georgia). Well you get the point.
-You have to agree that apart from some bad things that have happened in history, we are all better off today than we were 500 years ago... or do you disagree with that?

-The Aztecs were imperial conquerors as well. One empire absorbing another empire is still imperialism, no matter what the absorbee did.
-Every european nation has either been an Imperial power or a victim of another's imperial power.
-Sandwiches are tasty, yes. But i think they would have been invented, imperialism or not.
-Other cultures had philosphers too. Damn good ones too. Like Buddha, Confucious, Lao Tzu... the list goes on.
-The focus of the argument is not that Europeans are bad. It is that imperialism, in any shape or form is bad. European imperialism is just the most recent and most all consuming variation.
-There is no way to prove how things would have turned out if europe hadn't gone on the path of empire. It could have better, it could habe been worse. One things is for sure. There would be a lot more diverse varieties of cultures in the world.

Aelosia

15-09-2006, 14:08

Map of Mesoamerica (http://www.famsi.org/maps/)

And another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mesoamerica_english.PNG)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica

I wouldn't say that that area was "largely unpopulated" in the early XVIth century. And Patagonians "abundant"? In comparison with what other population? The Inuits, maybe? :D

Your definition of "Mesoamerica" seems to differ from mine. México is not included.

I must force you to remember that the spanish arrived to that zone in particular, Mesoamérica or Centroamérica, after a period of great famine, catastrophe and several intestine wars between the different factions. Most cities highlighted in your map, mostly in Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador were part of the Mayan Empire, that was already destroyed by the time the spanish arrived. As a matter of fact, those cities were already in ruins in the XIV century, abandoned and swallowed by the jungle. Just to highlight you to that simple fact. Thus, the area of those countries was already largely unpopulated. Even more, most of those ruins were discovered centuries after the spanish arrived, and they never heard about them.

The aztec empire was still standing, and it was populated and strong, and also entirely destroyed by the spanish invasion in an unhuman way. Yet again, they were based in México.

Patagons were as abundant as the Navajos, more or less, thus making the comparison between North and South America still effective. I don't think the spanish treated the indians of California worst than the treatment they got from the US troops who dealt with them later, or the treatment the first colonists gave to the indians of the eastern coast.

Ok, I shall compare.

South America: Murdering all who resist in search for gold. Decimating local population by forcing slavery on them and letting them survive on grass. Forcing catholicism on them. Melting their culture into gold bricks...

North America: buying land with worthless pearls, taking the rest. As little as possible interaction with both cultures. No slavery I can remember. Fought with them for land or because they were allied with a European foe of Britain...

The point is that both the peoples and the cultures of Latin América survived in a strongest fashion than those of North América, that found themselves waging a war they couldn't win and then reduced to a handful of abused women and children in rezservoirs like animals in a zoo. The results are for anyone to see if you check their status now.

I'm not saying the spanish were "kind" or "fair", far from it, they performed several systematic genocides in the population of this areas. Some of them almost justified, others totally unwarranted. I must add something here, the indians were never "enslaved" in the strict sense of a word. Even the lax system of "encomiendas" used i the beginning was abolished by Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, and slavery was then strictly reduced to african blacks. After the reform, the indians were free men, the hard work and the slavery only reserved for negros (I know this do not improve the moral field of the conquistadores, but however clarifies an important misleading)

Most of the actual population of Latin América are "Mestizos" o "Pardos", half breeds of different races, mostly white, indian and black. If the spanish killed all the aborigines, How almost the 75 per cent of us are actually descendants of said indians? Of course, I bet you have never been around here to know that simple, actually open fact.

Forcing catholicism into them, yes that was bad, but at least was an intent of assimilation of the population, not outright murder like with the Tasmans, just to name one. The current culture of most of the South American countries is a melting pot of all those survivig cultures with the portuguese and spanish ones, because they respected at least a bit the cultural expressions of said peoples. The influence of both african and aborigine culture is open to see all across Latin America. I fail to see how much the North American natives affected the culture of the USA and Canada.

Melting their culture into bricks of gold? Of course, it was plunder. Did the british made something better? They also stole every rich in every country they colonized.

Aronnax

15-09-2006, 15:38

Most of the actual population of Latin América are "Mestizos" o "Pardos", half breeds of different races, mostly white, indian and black. If the spanish killed all the aborigines, How almost the 75 per cent of us are actually descendants of said indians? Of course, I bet you have never been around here to know that simple, actually open fact.

Mexicans are better off than other countries a total of 30% are pure native blood60% has native blood

Agentina was worser off with 13% native blood and Uraguay with only 8% with native blood but 0% pure native blood

Aelosia

15-09-2006, 15:49

Mexicans are better off than other countries a total of 30% are pure native blood60% has native blood

Agentina was worser off with 13% native blood and Uraguay with only 8% with native blood but 0% pure native blood

And in Canada, the USA and Australia, just to give some examples?

Bogmihia

15-09-2006, 17:19

I thought this debate was over, but since I see it's not...

not a history expert. but i am aware of the horrible things then did to romania. and more recently to armenia. although i wouldnt hold it against any turkish person, aslong as they understand they were wrong.
A very rational and cool headed aproach. Too bad you can't have the same attitude when talking about the English: :(
the english are just greedy and only think of thier own gain

Many aboriginals DO still choose to live in the bush. Despite having been exposed to the "benefits" of urban living.
I refer you to my original statement: "I haven't heard of Aboriginals leaving the cities to go live in the bush". :rolleyes: Please pay attention to what I'm saying, okay?

In many cases the societies were fairly technologically advanced, they just happened to be extremely susceptible to European diseases. The colonists were quite happy to adopt many of the technologies used by the natives.
Allow me to consider a caravel as far more advanced than a canoe.

What does this have to do with anything?
The fact I'm Eastern European makes me see very easy how good a situation they have. Despite all the moaning about being opressed & shit, them being colonized has resulted into a huge improvement in their standard of living. It may not be as high as that of the other inhabitants in their respective countries, but it's far better than what they had, than what I have or than what 90% of the world has.

Your definition of "Mesoamerica" seems to differ from mine. México is not included.
It's not my definition, it's the widely accepted one (the only one I knew about, really, until talking to you), and it only includes the southern parts of Mexico, not the entire country.

Regarding the rest: there has never been a Mayan Empire as far as I know, only a Mayan civilization. Which did not dissapear, just relocated from the region where it attained its greatest refinement. There are lots of Mayans even today. Further, the Mayas were still going strong (despite the decline of their "Classical" civilization). It took the Spanish 170 years to conquer them.

The aztec empire was still standing, and it was populated and strong, and also entirely destroyed by the spanish invasion in an unhuman way. Yet again, they were based in México.
The southern part, in Mesoamerica.

P.S. If you find a definition of Mesoamerica nor including southern Mexico, please show it to me.

Patagons were as abundant as the Navajos
And I'm as filthy rich as a loser on welfare. Please use the proper meaning of a word.

thus making the comparison between North and South America still effective
If you ammend it to North America and southern South America (I hope you don't claim Patagonians live in Brazil or Columbia), I agree. And we can see a simmilar outcome for the natives there.

Look, the environement clearly affected the way the colonies got to be. Look at Belize, for example. Has it developed along the lines of Australia or the USA? It looks more like Guatemala or Honduras. What about Jamaica? You had the same system of slave plantations in both Jamaica and Haiti, despite their being ruled by different states. Similarily, Argentina and what is now Canada and the US had simmilar conditions (temperate climate, fairly sparse population). They ended up with very little natives, despite being ruled in the beginning by different colonial powers. You don't have to be a genious to see all that.

Drake and Dragon Keeps

15-09-2006, 17:56

The world has always been divided into rich and poor, at least since people stopped hunting and gathering and settled down in villages. It's just that some rich people are now far richer than before.

The areas that are the most wealthy has changed, Previously asia was generally the more wealthy continent. Now it is the western world, for the present, that is th wealthiest.

Evil Cantadia

15-09-2006, 23:56

I refer you to my original statement: "I haven't heard of Aboriginals leaving the cities to go live in the bush". :rolleyes: Please pay attention to what I'm saying, okay?

Yet you were holding out your mistaken belief to support your argument. If you don't want me to correct your misconceptions, then stop throwing them out there to support your arguments.

Allow me to consider a caravel as far more advanced than a canoe.

Depends on whether you need to get across an ocean or up a river. As soon as the colonists needed to do the latter, they quickly adopted the canoe . And the Indigenous inhabitants were often quite happy to make use of ships and other European technologies (such as guns) when it suited them ... and quick to learn how to use them. My point is that the technological exchange was far more two way than your suggestion that "an advanced society met a neolithic one" suggests. From that standpoint, the encounter between the two cultures was largely beneficial. The Europeans had developed technologies based on what was required and possible in their environment based on its particular endowments. The Indigenous peoples had done the same. The Europeans needed alot of the latter in order to survive in this new environment. The exchange was initially beneficial for both societies, and might have stayed that way were it not for the destructive effect of European diseases.

The fact I'm Eastern European makes me see very easy how good a situation they have. Despite all the moaning about being opressed & shit, them being colonized has resulted into a huge improvement in their standard of living. It may not be as high as that of the other inhabitants in their respective countries, but it's far better than what they had, than what I have or than what 90% of the world has.

Really? Can you provide some relevant data that shows that their standard of living has improved?

NationStates Jolt Archive

European Colonisation: Good or Bad